Missouri v. Seibert – FYS 100 – 34: The Rights of the Criminally Accused

Many Supreme Court cases, and lower court cases, reveal that there are many exceptions and “special” rules to the justice system. Whether it’s exceptions to how the law is written, executed, or interpreted, there clearly are some discrepancies in the rules. The expectations of law officials vary depending on many circumstances. In Miranda v. Arizona, it was clearly ruled that Miranda rights had to be given when the individual was obtained and before interrogation. Miranda rights would serve as a way to uniformly inform the accused. The rights they were given had to be presented to them and they were given the option to waive them or accept them. But with certain rules, there comes exceptions and opportunities to not properly follow them. The Miranda case explicitly stated how and when the statement of rights should be announced. There shouldn’t have been any confusion or misunderstanding by those who had to execute the law. In Missouri v. Seibert, the Supreme Court justices ruled that the information gathered from an interrogation that wasn’t initiated by Miranda rights was unconstitutional. Getting an accused individual to confess without being issued these rights would result in statements that aren’t valid in any court of law.

The police officer was aware of the protocol and requirements of the Miranda warming, but was instructed to do otherwise by higher authority. The steps to completely tell someone their rights are simple. The police officers and investigator were under the impression that their misleading tactic would lead to an easy going confession, which it did. But without the Miranda warning being issued, the incriminating and confessed statements wouldn’t be allowed as evidence in any court.

It is known that police officers have the power to mislead and pretend, for the sake of the cases and their jobs, but it would eventually end up costing everything! They were almost certain that Seibert would repeat her confession, but what if she didn’t? What if she knew she’d be free and decided to lie to the police? What if?

Zachary Justice says:

November 7, 2016 at 11:05 am

I like the idea you posed with the question what if. I think this clearly highlights the exact purpose of the Miranda rule and how it places a check on the police. When a police officer violates the Miranda rule, he is left with that very question… what if? Because the Miranda rule is such a simple requirement to meet it makes it a great way to punish police and make sure they will not violate the accused rights again in the future. In the case of Seibert, she was such a vile criminal who most people can agree is someone who needs to be in prison for a long time. With the police acting shady and breaking Miranda rule, this bad person is let back into society. The police and investigators are then forced to reflect on their decisions and will likely act in a different way in the future when faced with a situation that they feel it would be advantageous to violate the Miranda rule. It was unfortunate that this was the case that had to really instill in law enforcement the importance of the miranfa rule but I believe the Court made the correct choice.